[ EDITOORIAL ]

Governmental Partners: Cooperation, Not Combat

Published: Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 11:03 p.m.

In a perfect union, local, state and federal governments would play as though they are on the same team. But, in practice, those government bodies and their leaders are often adversaries, competing over political control and money.

There has always been tension and finger-pointing between the three levels of government — local, state and federal. However, the relationship between the Florida Legislature, and the state's cities and counties, has been unusually tense.

The recession, which caused a precipitous decline in tax revenue, fueled state-local disputes: Legislators attempted to pass programs, once funded and operated by the state, to local governments — but without funding. For example, the state pulled back juvenile-justice, mental-health and substance-abuse programs, leaving local governments with greater burdens.

The Republican-led Legislature repeatedly sought to intervene in local-decision making — in part because leaders and key members disagreed with those decisions. For instance, the Legislature curbed local governments' ability to manage development, and levy impact fees and taxes. Legislators tried to prevent cities and counties from creating ordinances tailored to local conditions.

This year's crop of legislators has appeared more amenable to that message than representatives and senators were in the recent past. "I don't blame them for having that type of message," state Sen. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton said last week.

Yet local officials should be careful: They might get what they ask for.

WANTS VS. NEEDS

During meetings between local officials and the local legislative delegation, cities and counties typically ask for millions of state tax dollars for projects. Some of those requests are warranted because the projects would provide statewide or, at least, regional benefits. But frequently the funding requests are for local wants and not state needs — such as civic facilities, downtown or suburban landscaping, equipment for firefighters, etc.

That said, local governments have been unduly restricted by the Legislature. A case can be made for laws and rules that are consistent statewide. But local governments need the ability and authority to react to local needs, desires and conditions.

Legislators from Polk County have cooperated with local governments, and the people they represent. But the overriding posture of the Florida Legislature has been combative toward local governments. The potential for good government, is greater when local, state and federal officials are partners, not adversaries.

<p>In a perfect union, local, state and federal governments would play as though they are on the same team. But, in practice, those government bodies and their leaders are often adversaries, competing over political control and money.</p><p>There has always been tension and finger-pointing between the three levels of government — local, state and federal. However, the relationship between the Florida Legislature, and the state's cities and counties, has been unusually tense.</p><p>The recession, which caused a precipitous decline in tax revenue, fueled state-local disputes: Legislators attempted to pass programs, once funded and operated by the state, to local governments — but without funding. For example, the state pulled back juvenile-justice, mental-health and substance-abuse programs, leaving local governments with greater burdens.</p><p>The Republican-led Legislature repeatedly sought to intervene in local-decision making — in part because leaders and key members disagreed with those decisions. For instance, the Legislature curbed local governments' ability to manage development, and levy impact fees and taxes. Legislators tried to prevent cities and counties from creating ordinances tailored to local conditions.</p><p>This year's crop of legislators has appeared more amenable to that message than representatives and senators were in the recent past. "I don't blame them for having that type of message," state Sen. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton said last week.</p><p>Yet local officials should be careful: They might get what they ask for.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>WANTS VS. NEEDS</strong></p><p>During meetings between local officials and the local legislative delegation, cities and counties typically ask for millions of state tax dollars for projects. Some of those requests are warranted because the projects would provide statewide or, at least, regional benefits. But frequently the funding requests are for local wants and not state needs — such as civic facilities, downtown or suburban landscaping, equipment for firefighters, etc.</p><p>That said, local governments have been unduly restricted by the Legislature. A case can be made for laws and rules that are consistent statewide. But local governments need the ability and authority to react to local needs, desires and conditions.</p><p>Legislators from Polk County have cooperated with local governments, and the people they represent. But the overriding posture of the Florida Legislature has been combative toward local governments. The potential for good government, is greater when local, state and federal officials are partners, not adversaries.</p>